PZC agenda

[Tom Harbinson - Personal]

This is why I can't plod along much longer in this role on CC.  I feel responsible in our CC role and thought I'd take a look at the PZC agenda for tonite.

 

B. Application #09-09, James Blakeman for Subdivision Approval (2 Lots: Twin Lots Estates), Buddington Road (Map 62, Lot 12), R-1 District – accept for review

We were asked by the PZC staff to comment on this at our CC mtg before the PZC even accepted it for review.  Likely not a change to the applicants documents during the interm period - but I recall projects over the years where we were asked to look at dwgs, and then it turned out that the other commissions were not looking at the same version or revisions.  What really caught my eye, is the later agenda item:

C. 8-24 Referral: disposition of City property (Soundview Avenue)

Now, I was asked informally by the Mayor last fall about how I would feel about the City selling 279 Soundview Ave back to the seller.  It didn't smell right then, and smells worse now.  I heard nothing further officially or unofficially, but the BOA changed the rules last month about disposing of City property.  Hmmm.  The PZC agenda doesn't give the full street address in it's agenda.  Thus is would not show in the results of a site restricted google search using the number 279 as part of search term.  I'm not saying the PZC left off the street number to avoid a google search, but the agenda is being un-necesarily vague.

Here is the power of a google search.  put this query into the search box: site:cityofshelton.org 782 8-24

Then you can see the top result for what happened during Jan27 public hearing on modifying the ordinance for disposing of property.  Further below are the results as stated in the BOA Feb11 minutes approving the new ordinance:

I shouldn't have to search to find these hidden nuggets of info and activities, and then try to figure out these puzzles of what the intent is.  The PZC is already doing an 8-24 process, but the Park&Rec or CC have not been requested to comment.  I'm getting no communication from City Hall, and if I'm to be treated as an outsider, I have far better uses for my time.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN THAT:

Procedure to Sell City Property

Definition:

From time to time the City may be asked or may decide to sell real property owned by the City and hereby determines that a procedure shall be provided regarding the sale of said real property. Said procedure pertains only to property which the Board of Aldermen consider "significant".

"Significant" shall be defined as the sale of real property which has a fair market value in excess of ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars.

Procedure:

Initial Determination by the Board If a request is received the Board of Aldermen asking the City to sell City owned real property and the Board of Aldermen determines that the Board has an interest in selling said property or if the Board of Aldermen decides to sell City owned real property, the Board shall follow the following procedure.

1. The Board of Aldermen shall request from the Conservation Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission their opinion regarding said sale. The Board of Aldermen specifically wants said Commission's opinion regarding the property's open space, conservation or recreational value to the City.

2. The Board of Aldermen will consider the information provided by the Conservation Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission and determine if the Board wishes to proceed.

3. If the Board of Aldermen determines to proceed, the Board of Aldermen will then seek an 8-24 referral from the Planning and Zoning Commission.

a) If the 8-24 is favorable to sell, the Board of Aldermen may proceed with thisprocess.

b) If the 8-24 is unfavorable, the Board of Aldermen must override the unfavorable by a 2/3 vote in order to proceed.

4. If the Board of Aldermen wishes to proceed with the sale process, they shall have the property appraised. Any appraisal received shall not be disclosed until after the sale has been completed.

5. The Board of Aldermen shall hold a public hearing in accordance with P.A. 07-218, when applicable.

6. If the Board of Aldermen wish to proceed with the sale process, the Board of Aldermen can then proceed to advertise that it is accepting bids with a cutoff date to receive sealed bids subject to any deed restrictions and/or conditions the Board deems appropriate. Each bid must be accompanied with a check equal to ten (10%) percent of the amount bid.

7. The Purchasing Agent would publicly open the bids and refer them to the Finance Committee of the Board of A&T who would determine the highest, responsible bidder. The Board of Aldermen reserves the right to reject any and all bids.

8. The Board of Aldermen approves the price and authorizes the sale. Specifically excluded from this process is the sale of real property located within the Redevelopment Plan or a Municipal Development Plan as designated by the Board of Aldermen. The Board o Aldermen shall determine the process of the sale of real property located within a Redevelopment Plan or a Municipal Redevelopment Plan on a case by case basis taking into consideration any Grant and statutory requirements.

Here is what the ordinance No 782 used to say regarding this:

Sec. 2-18.  Procedure to sell city property.

(a)   Definition.  From time to time the city may be asked or may decide to sell property it owns. This property may be a small fraction of land or a full building lot or a parcel consisting of several acres. It could also be property containing buildings. This procedure pertains only to property of significant size (building lot or larger), with or without buildings on it. 

(b)   Procedure.  Request is received asking to sell city owned property or the BOA decides to sell city property of significant size. 

(1)   The conservation commission and parks and recreation commissions are asked for their opinion. The BOA specifically wants to know if the property has open space, conservation or recreational value to the city.

(2)   If the answer were "yes" and the BOA agrees, the BOA would be guided by this information.

(3)   If no, the BOA would seek an 8-24 referral from planning and zoning.

(4)   If the 8-24 were favorable to sell, the BOA would proceed with this process.

(5)   If the 8-24 is unfavorable, the BOA must override the unfavorable by a two-thirds ( 2/3) vote to proceed.

(6)   If the 8-24 is favorable or if the unfavorable 8-24 is overridden, the BOA can then proceed to have the land appraised.

(7)   If the appraised value of the property is five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) or higher, the board of aldermen must hold a public hearing before deciding to sell and advertising for bids.

(8)   Upon receipt of the appraisal, the city would advertise that it is accepting bids no lower than the appraised price (or another price agreed to by the BOA) with a cut off date to receive sealed bids. All bids are required to be accompanied by a certified check equal to ten (10) percent of the bid price.

(9)   The purchasing agent would open the bids and refer them to the finance committee of the board of A&T who would determine the highest, responsible bidder.

(10)   The BOA approves the price and authorizes the sale

 

 

[McCreery, Edward P.]

Well I guess by now we should know that such cryptic inquiries lead to ultimate action down the road without consultation.  Thats not the 1st time we've seen that.  Whats lost in your email is do we care about the Soundview parcel.  How big is it?  Where is it?  How did the City get title to it?  And why does the owner want it back?

---

From: shel...@googlegroups.com [mailto:shel...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Harbinson - Personal
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:56 PM
To: shel...@googlegroups.com
Subject: SheltonCC PZC agenda

[Jim Tate]

Understand your frustration… lets fire off  an e-mail ( if you haven’t already to John A. ) asking him why the BOA isn’t  following procedure and asking both CC and Parks & Rec for comment on this Soundview piece, more specifically what is this piece and the particulars. Pls. forward this if needed.

 

Jim

 

-----Original Message-----
From: shel...@googlegroups.com [mailto:shel...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Harbinson - Personal
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:56 PM
To: shel...@googlegroups.com
Subject: SheltonCC PZC agenda

 

This is why I can't plod along much longer in this role on CC.  I feel responsible in our CC role and thought I'd take a look at the PZC agenda for tonite.

[Bill Dyer]

As I understand it, the thought is to sell the house and its lot to recoop some of the cost of buying the 279 Soundview property and to avoid having to deal with a house. However it would seem that decision would have to go through the process as outlined in the statute and the house would go to the highest bidder. Why would it go to the previous owner, who sold the property for a price much closer to his appraised value than the City's appraised value.

[Tom Harbinson - Personal]

Ed - did you really lose sight of whats between the lines?  279 Soundview was the parcel formerly owned by an LLC where Al Dasilva was a member.  The appraisal of the selling should be intriguing given past history.  My frustration is the lack of process and communication of plans or applications, but that's how parking areas with woodchips or private lacrosse groups using City property come to fruition.

[McCreery, Edward P.]

Oh - that's the house on the parcel????

---

From: shel...@googlegroups.com [mailto:shel...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Harbinson - Personal

Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:55 PM
To: shel...@googlegroups.com
Subject: SheltonCC Re: PZC agenda

[Tom Harbinson - Personal]

Discussed this with SandyN today on phone.  She will be sending us the packet on the proposal and request for comment (as well as ParkRec), basically following the process which she simply did not get around to due to work load.  It is indeed 279 Soundview Ave, but until we see what is being carved out for possible sale, what is fully being proposed to be sold - we should reserve judgement.

 

Also we will be getting a similar process request for the City to sell the property on Howe Ave that was the old police station, where Valley Health was most recently housed.  Likely not much CC interest, but it is the process of ordinance.

 

If there were a complete staff mtg each week, these things would have better awareness and process would happen more briskly, but that would require collaboration and trust, the components I realize now occur more-so in private enterprise than the political scene.